Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[Methais]

It blocks their ability to speak to an elected official.

They can go here instead then:
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/

[Gelston]

They can go here instead then:
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/

What if he blocks them there too?

[Methais]

What if he blocks them there too?

Send email to SIMU-TRUMP@PLAY.NET

Or do what people did until like 10-20 years ago:

[Viekn]

They can go here instead then:
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/

So following that logic, it would be OK for an elected official to block someone from speaking verbally against the elected official, as long as the person speaking out was allowed to still write letters to speak out against the official?

[Gelston]

Send email to SIMU-TRUMP@PLAY.NET

Or do what people did until like 10-20 years ago:

The point is, the elected official isn't allowed to block ANY form of communication. They can ignore it, but they can't outright prevent it.

[Methais]

The point is, the elected official isn't allowed to block ANY form of communication. They can ignore it, but they can't outright prevent it.

Ok fair enough.

Going forward, instead of blocking someone, Trump should respond to those people with this, as it would likely cause infinitely more butthurt:

[Gelston]

Ok fair enough.

Going forward, instead of blocking someone, Trump should respond to those people with this, as it would likely cause infinitely more butthurt:

And that shit would be hilarious, and 100% in keeping with the court's decision.

[Neveragain]

Federal Court Rules President Trump Can't Block Critics On Twitter

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that President Donald Trump is not allowed to block people who criticize him on Twitter. The three-judge panel upheld a decision by a lower court, which found that the president violates the First Amendment when he blocks his critics on Twitter.

The case was brought by Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of seven individuals who were blocked by Trump after they sent tweets criticizing his policies. Once the users were blocked, they were unable to view the president's Twitter feed or respond to his tweets.

The court found that public officials who use social media for "all manner of official purposes" are not allowed to block people because it would prevent them from engaging in open dialogue with those officials.

"In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less," Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote.

___________________________

How does this even add up?

It doesn't. Last I checked Twitter is privately owned. If Twitter was government ran then it would hold water. This whole "but my free speech" argument on these privately owned social apps is an argument based on ignorance of the law.

[Gelston]

It doesn't. Last I checked Twitter is privately owned. If Twitter was government ran then it would hold water. This whole "but my free speech" argument on these privately owned social apps is an argument based on ignorance of the law.

And this isn't a ruling against Twitter. It is a ruling that, as a publicly elected official, you cannot block means of communication from the public.

[Neveragain]

And this isn't a ruling against Twitter. It is a ruling that, as a publicly elected official, you cannot block means of communication from the public.

Last I checked, the presidents address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500.

The supreme court would/will shoot this down in a heartbeat.